About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
worked for ronald reagan. what you want, you should tax. what you don't want as a society, what you don't want is a society, rather, you should tax and what you do want you should subsidize. my god, if there's anything we should be subsidizing, it's medical devices and research and medicine and science. and here is the administration coming with a 2.3% tax on companies, many of which are not profitable. shannon: yeah. and that's just one of many, many taxes tucked into the bill, but, of course, more than 3,000 pages and most members of congress admitted they didn't read it. it's good to see you, thank you so much for weighing in. >>> the resignation of the nation's spy chief has the pentagon releasing its version of events of the terror attacks in libya that left four americans dead. we're going to show you that timeline. and what looks like a joke is growing bigger. [ male announcer ] when was the last time something made your jaw drop? campbell's has 24 new soups that will make it drop over, and over again. ♪ from jammin' jerk chicken, to creamy gouda bisque. see what's new from cam
's daughter, understood conservatism or ronald reagan, the alcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new
petitions. they did not threaten third- party movements. in a nutshell, what ronald reagan understood was a conservatism was not defined by its resentment. but which actually had a smile on its face. much like reagan himself. that is why it into a curious sort of way, it seems republicans, not out of breath out -- not out of nostalgia am i think for conservatives you can do a lot worse thing go back and look at the real reagan. the pragmatic reagan. the reagan who was willing under certain circumstances to raise taxes. the reagan willing to put dick on his ticket in '76 or george bush four years later. >> the tax policies that some precedent. do you think the fiscal cliff and the presence of the debt ceiling are enough to overcome this culture of obstruction? >> i am not sure it will overcome the culture of destruction. that is in many ways an outgrowth of the political system that we have built. on the other hand, you may not have to overcome the culture of obstruction. only have to pick up -- pick off x number members of congress. >> he said it was time for republicans to stopping t
of the major puzzles and challenges for the republican party now as it was a generation ago. ronald reagan, in part with the help of jack kemp a generation ago, found a way to sell supply side economics as a blue collar alternative. to sell it to the common man. that's what reagan and kemp were all about. the republicans lost the ability to do that. they lost the argument once. they're going to have to figure out how to make that argument again because if they're going to say that unleashing the power of the free market is the route forward for the middle class and the working people of america, they need convincing arguments and convincing people to do it. mitt romney, if you look at it from even the slightest distance, was arguably the worst possible carrier of that message. they need somebody else. they need southern populism or populism from somewhere, but they also need the proof. they need the evidence. and lacking the evidence last time in the election of a week ago, a week or two ago, people went with the -- what they knew, which was the president's belief in the power of governmen
countries have transformed, reform, lower the rates. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan in 1986. bill clinton did raise it at one point but we haven't done anything to touch the rate and reform -- tecum from 16.5% to 15% which most of you are aware of because you do business there, and this capital investment is going to follow countries that have a more competitive environment in taxes is one of them's a we have to reform the tax code and when you do that you will get more revenue. it's guaranteed. again, as i was talking at earlier there are opportunities here for us as a country and if you look at the congressional budget analysts this and go to the tax committee analysis what tax reform could mean in the economic growth and all of them will lead to more growth with this corporate tax reform. estimate of the president says what he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and we fought over rising tax rates. jay carney said they would veto any bill that extends the current tax rate so if he insists that tax rates go out for those making over to under $50,000 will would
. there is that incentive as well. you have to look at ronald reagan as well as henry kissinger, when they went into negotiations, said you have to come willing to truly cut a deal. you may get 90%. >> takes both sides. obama is very good in liberal rhetoric blaming republicans. even in "l.a. times", obama wants to help the middle class but republicans don't want to give everything to the rich which is not true. and a lot of liberals are saying this was a mandate to raise taxes? i think people can be pro-choice, pro-day marriage and have fiscal responsibility and live within their means. jon: well, i mean to be honest, angela, the president campaigned on a platform saying i'm going to go back to the bill clinton tax rates and the wealthiest are going to have to pay more money and he won. >> but bill clinton worked with a republican congress and our economy was not in dire straits that it is right now. so if he really wants to go back to the bill clinton days he should go to the table and work with republicans. >> also you have to look taxes were historical high. one of the things they're talkin
that divided government sometimes has done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ronald reagan and tip o'neill doing the last comprehensive tax reform. bill clinton and republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people. and we have, of course, as everyone well knows, a lot of challenges here at the end of the year. i'll be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk about the way forward. and we look forward to being a part of the solution to these significant problems. it's my plesh shoe now to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john cornyn of texas. >> thanks, mitch. it's an honor to be elected by my colleagues to serve as the whip. the assistant leader on the republican side. as leader mcconnell said, we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solving the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame d
is ronald reagan. the numbers are still being counted in the west coast so it will be bigger. obama has the bigger margin of victory than george bush did in 2004. and remember that george bush declared himself a mandate into how. >> stephanie: how long bigger do you think the poplar vote margin would have been if it weren't to hurricane sandy. obviously the popular vote would have been bigger. >> caller: no, it's clear. i wouldn't be surprised if we get to a four-point margin. this is how good this is. we are close if it expands to half a percent, which is doable with the ballots in california arizona and washington and oregon. president obamamitt romney will have around 47% of the vote. >> stephanie: how ironic tee hee. congratulations on all your rightness and smartness. >> caller: thanks very much. >> what universe is dick morris not part of the media. he's complaining about the media and his mug is on fox news every five minutes. >> stephanie: myth busters is taking you to task for saying it's too landslides in a row. >> it's not two lan landslides in a row. >> stephanie: what do y
the center. as an independent, i can give advice to both parties. >> ronald reagan and jack kemp -- the party of upward mobility, that didn't seem to be the republican party this year. now, maybe it was because of this very effective attack campaign against mitt romney and bain capital and 47% of all that stuff. but i think hispanics and asians -- and a lot of women, they didn't vote for the republican party not just if you are hispanic because you think their anti-immigrant, but because it doesn't seem like the kind of party that will create a country in which you are were going to have a chance to rise. it seems, by their own statement and also by the definition the democrats gave them, is a more exclusive thing. if republicans don't change that, their future is not good enough let me just say that it he would've been allowed to be out there a little bit more -- he was a jack kemp disciple. i think it's remarkable that we could reelect an african-american president with the name of barack obama at a time when you had almost 9% unemployment in the country was suffering economically. no that
of the money here, but to be the big problems have been the trade agreements, starting with ronald reagan, the outsourcing of our jobs. there are a lot of people trying to live and $10 an hour while they are getting social security, medicare, taking out of their money, and then they are told by people like paul ryan and mitt romney that that is an entitlement. to me, that is like more of a ponzi scheme if they take that away. getting back to the elephant in the room, until we start talking about structurally change in this country beyond fighting over taxes -- you can fight over moving around the chairs on the titanic, but what really needs to be done is we need to repeal the trade agreement, look at taxing goods from china, and we need to get jobs back into this country, manufacturing jobs with wages people can live on and pressure for wages to go up. right now, the pressure is for wages to go down. you are fighting over what is less of the money coming in. host: let's go to the congressman. guest: this is an important issue that was fought over in the campaign. we need to support manufa
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
that divided government has sometimes done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ron reagan and tip o'neill during the current tax reform. bill clinton and the republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people, and we have, as everyone knows, a lot of challenges at the end of the year. i will be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk about the way forward. we look forward to being a part of the solution to the significant problems. it is my pleasure to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john corn andyn of texas. >> -- senator john cornyn of texas. >> is an honor to serve as the assistant leader on the republican side. we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solve the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame duck and we know what those are going forward. there is no mystery about that, nor is
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)